Hbp

jicecone · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 08:14am

In Fed ball, the rule did change about two years ago from the batter "avoiding being hit" to "if he permits the pitched ball to touch him" 8-1-1d.1. There is a fine line here and judgement error on a pitch in the box, should favor the batter and award first.

I pretty much go by anytime a pitch hits a batter in the box, your sending him to first unless he makes some movement to get hit.

Had a game last Fri where coach was arguing about a pitch (curve ball that broke down an in on the batter) that hit the batters back knee. Said batter had to avoid. I told him that first of all he moved his front leg and second of all that is not where the pitch belongs.

MD Longhorn · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 08:32am

If the pitch is so slow that any player at that age should reasonably be expected to get out of it's way - I don't award.

If the batter turns into the pitch or sticks out an elbow or knee - I don't award.

In just about every other case - give them the base.

MikeStrybel · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 08:45am

The word permit is critical, as it is defined as allowing something to happen. "Permit a pitched ball to touch him" implies that the batter acted to get hit, either by not moving when he had time to do so or by placing himself into the pitch's flight. Sometimes you have to umpire - keep him in the box if he cheats.

bigjohn · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 09:58am

Quote:

Is there a question here?

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

mbyron · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 10:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

This part is incorrect and causes confusion. The rule requires umpire judgment: did the player intentionally permit the pitch to hit him?

Some pitches give a batter time to get out of the way. But sometimes a batter freezes and doesn't know which way to move. If I judge that the batter deliberately allowed the pitch to hit him -- or even moved into it -- I'll keep him in the box. Otherwise, HBP.

If a coach complains, I'll tell him: if you don't want him to get 1B, don't pitch in the batter's box.

Rich · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 11:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron

This part is incorrect and causes confusion. The rule requires umpire judgment: did the player intentionally permit the pitch to hit him?

Some pitches give a batter time to get out of the way. But sometimes a batter freezes and doesn't know which way to move. If I judge that the batter deliberately allowed the pitch to hit him -- or even moved into it -- I'll keep him in the box. Otherwise, HBP.

If a coach complains, I'll tell him: if you don't want him to get 1B, don't pitch in the batter's box.

Exactly. The onus is on the pitcher to not hit the batter. If the batter could reasonably be expected to move to avoid being hit or deliberately moves to be hit, that's one thing, but who put the ball into the batter's box in the first place?

SanDiegoSteve · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 09:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

if the pitch is so slow that any player at that age should reasonably be expected to get out of it's way - i don't award.

If the batter turns into the pitch or sticks out an elbow or knee - i don't award.

In just about every other case - give them the base.

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron

this part is incorrect and causes confusion. The rule requires umpire judgment: Did the player intentionally permit the pitch to hit him?

Some pitches give a batter time to get out of the way. But sometimes a batter freezes and doesn't know which way to move. If i judge that the batter deliberately allowed the pitch to hit him -- or even moved into it -- i'll keep him in the box. Otherwise, hbp.

If a coach complains, i'll tell him: If you don't want him to get 1b, don't pitch in the batter's box.

+2

bigjohn · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 09:18pm

The umpire in the op said the rule changed. Like he would have kept him at the plate under the 'old' rule.

MD Longhorn · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 11:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Was this ump correct? The ump CYA's by saying the rule changed. Many umps wouldn't call it anything but HBP even before the language change.

If the kid makes no attempt to get out the way, he is letting it hit him. Although the verbaige changed the spirit of the rule is that you have to make an attempt to avoid being HBP.

True?

Close to true. Not sure it's CYA as the verbiage of the rule really did change. I wouldn't extend the verbiage of the rule to include that you "have to make an attempt to avoid" - in fact, it's pretty much exactly that which led to the rules change.

Consider the very young hitter that freezes in panic - that hitter did not "make an attempt to avoid" as the old rule stated - but the spirit of the rule is to award this hitter first base, and the new verbiage matches that.

Consider the pitch that bounces funny and hits the batter - again, no attempt to avoid - but the spirit of the rule (and now the verbiage) gives that batter first base as well.

I think the new verbiage more perfectly aligns with the true spirit of the rule.

Regarding the OP - neither new nor old verbiage (nor spirit) should give the player that leans into the pitch a base.

bigjohn · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 12:03pm

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

I don't see anything in this interpretation about the pitch being in the batter's box or out of the batter's box!

jicecone · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 12:42pm

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

As an experienced official I read that as a "batter attempting to be hit" to be a batter moving into a pitch. Which I have seen 3 times this year and called.
It just not as black and white as it reads and general thought is don't rule in favor of the defense (pitcher) when they don't follow the rules.

And last time I looked the pitcher is not allowed to hit the batter with a pitch. Was it intentional? You don't always know.

So who is more right here for being wrong?

mbyron · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 04, 2012, 12:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by ""taking one for the team."" Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.

I don't see anything in this interpretation about the pitch being in the batter's box or out of the batter's box!

That's not an interpretation, it's a statement of concern. And you clearly don't understand the last sentence in it, which is what I explained to you.